The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

Thank you, Ellen.  I remember sitting in front of the television in 1998, during the first few days of the Lewinsky scandal, listening to television commentators all but demand Clinton's resignation, and shivering, and saying to my husband, "Wait a minute! This is a coup d'état!" I wasn't the only one. Press critics ranging from the shrill (Michael Moore) to the reasonably steady (Todd Gitlin) were obviously thinking the same thing, because they soon published articles saying it, or saying that it had been a near-coup-d'état  Back then it was easy to see who was behind the circulation of the information and innuendo that wound up fueling an impeachment. The Lewinsky scandal was straightforwardly partisan. It was the extreme right that dug up the dirt and the Republicans who used it for political ends.

 

This time around, it all happened so fast we still don't understand what led to Spitzer's downfall, other than his own hypocrisy and the salacious detail included in the criminal complaint. (One federal prosecutor I know—who dismisses all conspiracy theories out of hand—nonetheless says that the level of detail in the complaint went far beyond what was strictly necessary or germane to bringing the case, and speculates that its authors were at the very least looking for some serious publicity, even before Client 9 was identified.) But I found myself in front of the television anyway, saying the same thing. Yes, Spitzer committed a crime, but personally, I still don't understand why it's a crime. (Read my post about Martha Nussbaum if you want to know why I think that. Better yet, read her article and the longer law-review article on prostitiution linked to it.) And what about the shocking invasion of Spitzer's privacy? Isn't there anything wrong with that? Does being a political figure automatically strip you of the obvious civil protections? Once it became clear that he wasn't moving money around for nefarious political purposes, oughtn't some form of restraint kicked in? Did his purported crime deserve the aggressive prosecuting it received? And as Martha Nussbaum asked, don't his estimable efforts over the years get him any credit? Or do his sexual pecadillos mean we should just kick this dedicated public servant aside like so much trash?

 

And how about the fuss the media are making about Paterson's affairs? Check out today's Times: The story is spiralling way out of Paterson's control. Are we going to throw him out of office, too? If this raging fire isn't what Philip Roth once called "sexual McCarthyism," I don't know what is.